The Influence of Religiously Motivated Consumer Boycotts on Brand Image, Loyalty
and Product Judgment
Introduction
In an era of increased competition, companies nowadays are bound to make substantial
efforts to manage their brand image. Nevertheless, the news abounds with instances of firms
have finding themselves in the middle of an unforeseen, boycott-caused, marketing crisis
stemming from a controversial event with which the firm has no explicit, direct relation.
Although boycotting as a voluntary, anti-consumption behaviour has occurred for decades,
consumer groups are increasingly adopting boycotts as their favoured coercive means of
expressing their dissatisfaction against firms in the marketplace (Sen, Gurhan-Canli, and
Morwitz, 2001). Despite this increase in boycotts, the impact of consumer boycotts on brand
image and customer loyalty has seldom been examined. Klein, Smith and John (2004) have
found that the act of boycotting harms brand image beyond the effects of perceived corporate
egregiousness, supporting the partial mediation of boycotting on the relationship between
egregiousness and brand image (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Nevertheless, the effect of boycotting
on customer loyalty has yet to be explored.
Literature concurs that consumers generally give preference to global brands over local ones
(Shocker, Srivastava and Ruekert, 1994), and that their perceptions of the former brands are
strongly linked to country-of-origin image (Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1996). Related research shows
significant evidence that information related to country-of-origin is often utilised as a „salient
cue‟, shaping customers‟ perception and evaluation of brands (Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka,
1985; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993). Moreover, Haubl (1996) found that both the brand name
and the country-of-origin have a significant impact on consumers‟ attitudes. While this may
seem encouraging for Western or international companies with strong brand names, the increase
of animosities caused by (a) political (e.g., Ettenson, Smith, Klein and John, 2006; Sandıkcı and
Ekici, 2009), (b) economic (e.g., Shin, 2001), or (c) military (e.g., Nijssen and Douglas, 2004)
egregious acts, can turn into a threat in specific situations or contexts.
The unwillingness to buy the specific products of a particular company or country altogether
is the individual output of boycott campaigns that can target either a particular firm or all the
firms of a given country (Abosag, 2010). Boycotting occurs when people deem a firm‟s (micro
boycotting) or a country‟s (macro boycotting) act to be egregious (Friedman, 1999; Klein, et al.,
2004). Accordingly, the target of a boycott can be related either directly or indirectly to the
offending party (Smith, 1997). In the case of a micro boycott, consumers find the policies of a
particular company intolerable, and therefore decide to withhold consumption of its products. In
a macro boycott, the targeted firm serves as a surrogate for the party whose actions are
objectionable (Shebil, Rasheed, and Al-Shammari, 2011). In this case, the companies of a given
country pay the price of a crisis for which they are not responsible, usually based on a countryof-origin motive.
Considering consumer ethnocentrism and animosity as two main motives for consumer
boycotts, this study tackles the religious animosity at the base of several recent boycott
campaigns around the world. This work aims to close the literature gap on religious animosity,
its ensuing boycott campaigns and its damaging effects on companies, by combining different
streams of literature on: (a) animosity (Klein, Ettenson, and Morris, 1998), (b) ethnocentrism
(Klein et al., 1998; Shimp and Sharma, 1987), (c) consumer boycotting (Klein et al., 2004), (d)
brand image (Martinez, Polo and Chernatony, 2008), (e) product judgment (e.g. Hui and Zhou,
2002), and (f) customer loyalty (e.g., Zeithmal, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996). Indeed, no study
has so far examined the influence of consumer boycotts on brand image in the specific case of
boycotting due to religious animosity caused by a country-of-origin related cause.
The paper adapts the Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase developed by Klein et
al. (1998) to investigate the concomitant influence of religious animosity based boycotts on
corporate brand image, customer loyalty and product judgment. The study examines the effects
of the religious animosity that Saudi Arabian Muslim consumers harboured towards the products
of a specific company, namely Arla Foods, targeted because of its Danish origin. Denmark was
considered as an offending country based on the controversy surrounding the Jyllands-Posten
cartoon publication, in the last quarter of 2005, depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an
unacceptable manner to the Muslim community, and the subsequent reactions of the Danish
Government and Danish companies operating in the Muslim World. It should be highlighted that
in Muslim societies, insults made against the Prophet Mohammed are deemed not only
blasphemy but also the gravest of all crimes (Knight, Bradley and Gao, 2009), and that the Saudi
Arabian culture is dominated by the Muslim belief system, Islam being the recognized religion
of the State.
The paper starts with a description of the study context, followed by a discussion of the
theoretical background supporting the proposed hypotheses. The methodology section describes
the research design, including the survey instrument, the data collection and the sample obtained.
The analysis and results sections set the ground for the discussion of the study implications both
for researchers and for practitioners. Finally, the paper ends with a presentation of the research
limitations and some directions for future investigation.
Research Context
Starting on 30th September 2005, a wave of religious animosity unfolded within the Muslim
community because of the publication by Jyllands Posten, an independent Danish newspaper, of
twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in an insulting manner to the worldwide
Muslim community (Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). In February 2006, a number of
European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, spreading the controversy across the world. Soon
thereafter, transnational religious animosity spread among Muslim communities. In the absence
of direct access to Jyllands Posten and to the Danish Government who supported the
newspaper‟s freedom of speech, protesters throughout the Muslim World identified indirect
boycott targets.
Consumer boycotts of Danish products took hold in most Middle Eastern countries. Whilst it
was the Danish newspaper that had published those images and refused to apologise, Danish
companies, particularly the dairy giant Arla Foods, were the most adversely affected by these
publications. Arla Foods had been operating in thirteen countries in the Middle East for over four
decades at the beginning of the crisis. Although the Middle East was the largest market for Arla
Foods outside Europe, the company lost over 60% of its market share in Saudi Arabia within the
first five days of the boycott early in 2006 (Abosag, 2009).
As part of its crisis management strategy, the initial reaction of the company was to support
„freedom of expression‟. Shortly afterwards, and in order to distance itself from the outrage over
the publications, Arla Foods chose to condemn the drawings in full-page advertisements
published in twenty five Arab newspapers in the Middle East. The company also sponsored a
number of humanitarian causes in the region in order to decrease consumer animosity (Knight, et
al., 2009).
In order to reduce the boycott spread, the company particularly relied on the fact that it
manufactures in Saudi Arabia. This strategy is in line with recent research on hybrid or binational products, those designed and manufactured in different countries (Verlegh and
Steenkamp, 1999), that indicates that the latter characteristic seems to moderate consumer
judgments and purchase intentions of these products (Funk, Arthurs, Treviño and Joireman,
2010). Literature shows that when a product‟s country-of-origin is one towards which the
consumer harbours animosity, the country of manufacture may alter product judgment and
boycott intentions.
Nevertheless, using solely the country of manufacture of its products – mainly Saudi Arabia
– in its counter-boycott communication strategy to distance itself from the crisis did not enable
Arla Foods to efficiently recover its pre-crisis sales figures. Indeed, a few years after the break of
the controversy, the company had not fully recovered its losses (Abosag, 2009). This explains
the choice of the specific case of Arla Foods in Saudi Arabia for this study, where the consumer
animosity model is applied to the domain of boycotting in order to analyze consumers‟
evaluation and buying decision processes in such a controversial situation.
Religious Animosity
The concept of animosity, derived from sociological literature, refers to the strong emotions
of antagonism and enmity that people can have based on beliefs of past and on-going events of
hostility between nations or people (Averill, 1982). Research on consumer ethnocentrism,
examining the morality of purchasing foreign-made products, precedes
that on consumer
animosity defined as „the remnants of anger reactions related to prior or current political,
military, economic, or diplomatic events that affect consumers‟ purchase behaviour‟ (Klein et al.,
1998) by over a decade. The possibility that a country‟s military or political actions in the
international arena may create animosity towards the brands produced by that country has
motivated research into consumer animosity, its antecedents, and its effects on purchase
decisions (Leong et al., 2008). Nonetheless, additional motives such as religious ones may be at
the base of consumer animosities. In fact, „religious animosity has been a strong cause for
consumer boycotts in the Muslim dominant markets, in which consumers aggressively use
boycott as an expression of their animosity towards the governments, corporations and
individuals engaged in acts deemed as offensive to the Muslim population‟ (Ili-Salsabila and
Abdul-Talib, 2012, p. 75).
Religious animosity, which shapes consumers‟ attitudes towards related macro boycotts, is
mostly culturally dependent. Indeed, what makes a boycott campaign that is triggered by an
egregious act against a religion so effective and long lasting in highly religious societies is the
fact that it attacks the core beliefs at the base of the identity of such religiously committed
consumers (Al-Hyari, Alnsour and Al-Weshah, 2012). This implies that any flagrant act against
religion needs to be evaluated within its social and cultural context. For instance, consumers in
Saudi Arabia are likely to react more vigorously to a religious scandal than consumers in less
religious societies.
Since market reality has revealed Islamism as being an increasingly compelling force shaping
consumer choices, Izberk-bilgin (2012) conducted an ethnographic study examining how the
Islamic ideology informs brand meanings, by elucidating „how consumers draw from religious
myths, local ideological tensions, global events, and historical conflicts to construe global brands
as ideological threats to Islam‟ (p. 664). In line with the growing research interest on how
Islamic values shape consumer choices, Mohamed and Daud (2012) studied the impact of
religious sensitivity on brand equity, defining sensitivity as the „individual‟s emotional perceived
inability to predict something accurately, due to the lack of sufficient information or to the
inability to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information‟ (p. 22). Interestingly, the
impact of religious animosity on brand equity includes an assessment of brand loyalty and
perceived product quality.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Consumer Ethnocentrism and Religious Animosity
Borrowing the sociological concept of ethnocentrism, Shimp and Sharma (1987, p. 280)
define consumer ethnocentrism as „the beliefs held by consumers with reference to the
appropriateness and morality of purchasing foreign-made products.‟ These tendencies are
derived from a love of one's country and the fear of harming its economic interests by purchasing
foreign products (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein, 1991). These attitudes are also
nurtured and sustained by the influence of surrounding groups (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004), as
consumer ethnocentrism gives the individual a sense of identity and belonging.
The consumer animosity model reveals a correlation between consumer animosity and
consumer ethnocentrism (Klein et al., 1998; Nijissen & Douglas 2004; Shin, 2001). We propose
that religious animosity and ethnocentrism are related. Additionally, it is expected that during a
macro-boycotting campaign, triggered by an egregious act against a specific religious group,
ethnocentric consumers may develop a high level of animosity against the perpetrator of the act.
Whilst animosity is a negative emotional attitude towards a country or a group (Klein and
Ettenson, 1999), ethnocentrism is an attitude that is based on the values of one‟s ethnic or
national group that becomes a source of pride (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004), whereas the symbols
of other groups become objects of contempt (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). While some studies (e.g.
Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Rose et al., 2009) relate animosity and ethnocentrism, Shankarmahesh
(2006) conceptualise animosity to be an antecedent of customer ethnocentrism. In this study,
similarly to the vast majority of the literature, we argue that during religiously motivated macroboycotts, consumer ethnocentrism and the level of animosity towards the boycotted country are
related. Indeed, the combined effect of animosity and ethnocentrism during religiously motivated
boycotts can determine the intensity and ferociousness of the campaign.
Religious Animosity, Boycotting Behaviour and Product Judgment
An early definition by Laidler (1913, p. 27) considered a boycott as „an organized effort to
withdraw and induce others to withdraw from social or business relations with another.‟ Eight
decades later, Friedman (1999, p. 4) described a boycott as „the attempt by one or more parties to
achieve certain objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected
purchases.‟
Consumers who develop feelings of enmity towards a country, due to a related religious
offence, may decide to boycott the products produced by its companies (Klein et al., 1998).
Looking at religious animosity, Ili-Salsabila and Abdul-Talib (2012) examine the relationship
between animosity in the Muslim markets and consumer boycotts, paying particular attention to
the underlying reasons which perpetrated consumer anger and animosity. Swimberghe, Flurry
and Parker (2011) also examine the religious commitment of consumers, or religiosity as termed
by Sandıkcı and Ekici (2009) and suggest that „customers who are highly religious not only
morally judge sellers‟ support of controversial causes as wrong, but also express their
dissatisfaction in the marketplace through an increase in boycott participation‟ (p. 464). In line
with previous research, this study tests the following:
H1: Religious animosity towards Denmark increases Saudi consumers’ boycott of Arla
Foods’ products.
Research related to country-of-origin (COO) in the past three decades has focused on how a
country‟s image affects consumer evaluation of its manufactured products (Johansson et al.,
1985). This stream of studies sheds light on the ability of the COO to shape product judgment,
evaluated in terms of production quality, technological advancement, reliability, and value
(Darling and Arnold, 1988). While established COO studies presume a direct relationship
between consumer product judgment and purchase behaviour, the animosity model suggests that
consumer animosity affects buying behaviour directly and independently of product judgment
(e.g. Green and Srinivasan, 1990). Unlike previous findings, the work by Rose et al. (2009)
indicates that high levels of animosity could lead to lower evaluation of product quality, with
both animosity and consumer ethnocentrism leading to a decreased willingness to purchase a
nation‟s products.
In addition, previous research postulates that consumers could assume or recognize that a
product is of good quality by its COO, but still refuse to buy the product due to feelings of
enmity towards the country (Klein et al., 1998). Contrastingly, Rose et al. (2009) examine the
influence of animosity on product judgment and consumers‟ unwillingness to buy, and provide:
(a) partial support to the claim that animosity is negatively influenced by the judgment of
products made by an offending country; and (b) full support that animosity positively affects
consumers‟ unwillingness to buy products made by the offending country. In the context of our
study, we extend prior research by proposing that religion-related egregious acts may generate
high levels of religious animosity among consumers who feel insulted. These feelings of
antagonism towards the offending country may be translated into a boycott of the goods
produced by the companies of that country independently of product assessment (Klein et al.,
1998). Therefore, even if consumers acknowledge the quality of a product, they will avoid
buying it, if it is produced by a country against which they harbour animosity. Accordingly, we
hypothesise:
H2: Religious animosity towards Denmark negatively influences Saudi consumers’ judgment
of Arla Foods’ products.
Consumer Ethnocentrism, Brand Loyalty and Boycotting Behaviour
According to the animosity model (Klein et al., 1998), animosity is country-specific and
cannot be generalised (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004); in other words, consumers who have
animosity towards a specific foreign country would discriminate against the products of that
country. In contrast, Klein and Ettenson (1999) advocate that ethnocentrism contributes to a
consumers‟ propensity to avoid buying foreign products in general and a tendency to view their
own country‟s products as higher in quality than those of all foreign countries. Besides,
consumers who are not particularly ethnocentric are likely not to purchase goods from a specific
country based on animosity towards that particular country (Klein et al., 1998).
H3: Saudi consumers’ ethnocentrism increases their boycott of Arla Foods’ products.
Previous research has found that, given the consequences of purchasing foreign products on
the local economy, consumer ethnocentrism is negatively related both to the evaluations of
product quality (Klein et al., 1998) and to the willingness to buy foreign products (Netemeyer et
al., 1991; Shimp and Sharma, 1987). In other words, highly ethnocentric consumers tend to view
the products of their own country as higher in quality than those of foreign countries and are
unwilling to buy imported products. Nonetheless, even if consumers have a negative attitude
towards foreign brands, in the absence of domestic alternatives, they are likely to purchase it,
with the only other alternative being not to make the purchase at all (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004).
By all accounts, ethnocentric consumers generally give their loyalty predominantly to domestic
brands. Since loyalty is about a consumer‟s intention to stay with an organisation (Zeithaml et
al., 1996), we expect that, during a boycotting campaign targeting a foreign company,
ethnocentric consumers will have little, if any, loyalty towards the boycotted organisation. In
view of this, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H4: Saudi consumers’ ethnocentrism negatively affects their loyalty to Arla Foods’ products.
Boycotting Behaviour, Brand Image, Product Judgment and Customer Loyalty
Research related to consumer boycotts is essential, especially on a managerial level, due to
the repercussions that it can have on the performance of companies (Farah and Newman, 2010).
Numerous empirical studies on the stock market reactions to boycott campaigns show evidence
that boycotts significantly reduce the market value of firms (Friedman, 1999). In addition, the
targeted firm usually suffers a number of other consequences, including a brand image damage, a
decline in customer loyalty, and possibly a decrease in the way consumers evaluate the products
of the targeted company (Klein et al., 2004).
Literature on macro boycotting suggests that brands from the boycotted country will be
negatively impacted, as consumers will hold a more negative image of the foreign country
brands (Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997). Klein et al. (2004) argue that boycott participation is
generally prompted by the belief that a firm has engaged in conduct that is remarkably wrong
and harmful to various entities, and propose that egregiousness affects brand image (Smith and
Cooper-Martin, 1997), suggesting that the greater the perceived egregiousness, the more
negatively affected the brand image is. According to various social-psychology theories, such as
the cognitive dissonance theory and the self-perception theory (Fazio, Zanna and Cooper, 1977),
undertaking an action typically leads to behaviour-consistent attitudes. Therefore, consumer
boycotting is likely to lead to a devaluation of their brand perception, and to their judgment of
the goods produced by the offending party. A consumer boycotting a foreign brand is likely to
associate the brand‟s image with the egregious act perpetrated by that foreign nation, thus
resulting in a negative image held by the boycotters, and a negative evaluation of the products
produced by companies of that country. The latter can infer a long-term renunciation of the
brand, and hence a decrease in loyalty to the targeted brand. In view of the preceding discussion,
we propose the following hypotheses:
H5: The boycott of Arla Foods’ products by Saudi consumers negatively affects Arla Foods’
brand image.
While the literature overwhelmingly reports that product judgment positively leads to
customers‟ willingness to buy (e.g. Klein et al., 1998; Shoham et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2010),
we suspect that product judgment does not necessarily lead to the opposite behaviour, that is
unwillingness to buy. We further argue that it is expected that during boycotting, customer‟s
unwillingness to buy may negatively influence customer‟s evaluation of the boycotted products.
Thus, we propose the below hypothesis.
H6: The boycott of Arla Foods’ products by Saudi consumers negatively influences their
judgment of Arla Foods’ products.
Additionally, given the strong empirical support for product judgment positively influencing
customers‟ willingness to buy, this study will test a competing model, which examines the
influence of product judgment on customers‟ unwillingness to buy (the opposite to H6).
Furthermore, the literature focuses mainly on product judgment and its relationship to
animosity and willingness to buy. However, the impact of the unwillingness to buy (i.e. to
boycott) on customer loyalty is largely ignored. It is safe to assume that customers who boycott
products that they used to buy will decrease their loyalty to all the products of the related brand.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H7: The boycott of Arla Foods’ products by Saudi consumers decreases their loyalty to the
brand.
The literature presents sufficient evidence that global brands can have a significant impact on
product perception and judgment (Leclerc, Schmitt and Dube, 1994) and on customer loyalty
(Delgado-Ballesta and Munuera-Aleman, 2000). In many countries, global brands are perceived
to be more prestigious and of higher quality (Steenkamp, Batra and Alden, 2003), though
perceptions vary from country to country (Moore, Kennedy and Fairhust, 2003). Research on the
subject supports the proposition that both country-of-origin and brand image are important
factors in consumer evaluations of product quality (Aaker, 1997). We expect brand image to
influence positively both product judgment and customer brand loyalty even during boycotting
campaigns; hence, we postulate the following:
H8: Arla Foods’ brand image increases Saudi consumers’ loyalty.
H9: Arla Foods’ brand image positively influences Saudi consumers’ judgment of the
company’s products.
The following structural model summarizes the set of hypotheses proposed above (see Figure 1).
--------------------Figure 1 Here
---------------------
Research Study
Prior to engaging in a quantitative analysis, the researchers examined the various effects of
this religiously motivated boycott by conducting eleven face-to-face interviews with Saudi
boycotters of Arla Foods (3 females and 8 males). The purpose was to examine consumers‟
perceptions of Arla Foods in the midst of the boycotting campaign. The interviews revealed a
similar attitude among the interviewees towards Arla Foods, with minor variations as to the
extent of their negative sentiment toward the brand. One interviewee (male, aged 23) said „I hate
seeing any Danish product in our markets. We don’t need these products. We have our own
products and we should help our firms.‟ Another participant (male, aged 42) said ‘in the past, I
used to buy Danish products, they were my first choice but since the attack on our prophet I
stopped buying them. We need to teach the others that we don’t tolerate any attack on our
prophet even if they have better products.’ A third participant (male, aged 29) stated that he was
„only loyal to Saudi products, which are of good quality‟. He went on to say „these days, I only
buy Danish products when I have to.‟ A fourth participant (female, aged 30) said „I tend to like
supermarkets, Panda for example that respect consumers’ requests not to have Arla [Foods’]
brands in their stores‟. Finally, another participant (female, aged 27) said “everyone knows
Danish products like Puck and Lurpak are good products but even if these are the only products
in the market I’ll never buy them again”. While the findings have helped to better understand
consumers‟ views on Danish brands in general, and Arla Foods in particular, the interviews have
been useful in developing the quantitative part of this study.
Data Collection and Participants
The research was conducted on Saudi Arabian consumers in the last quarter of 2009. Using a
systematic sampling method, which „produces samples that are almost identical to those
generated via simple random sampling‟ (McDaniel and Gates, 2001, p. 341), the study has
achieved the randomized sample necessary for this kind of study. The local telephone directory
was used to assemble the sample, implementing a skipping interval that was randomly fixed to
number eleven in each column (two columns) on each page. Respondents were first contacted to
secure their consent to participate in the study. Telephone interviews were then used to complete
the questionnaire. Social and religious reasons were key drivers behind the adoption of the
telephone survey methodology. This method has been very useful in reaching female
respondents who would otherwise be unreachable.
At the beginning of each interview, the investigator explained to the participant that the study
was designed to understand the boycotting of the Danish company Arla Foods by Saudi
consumers. It was explained to the respondents that Arla‟s brands include Puck, Lurpak, and
Cravendale. The following screening statement was made to clarify the selection criteria of
potential respondents: „It is not important if you have or have not participated in the boycott of
Arla‟s products. We would greatly appreciate your participation to help us understand this
phenomenon.‟ Moreover, the participants were ensured of the complete confidentiality of their
responses, and were guaranteed that data generated from the interviews will be used
anonymously and for academic purposes only. The interviewers also clearly conveyed that the
survey would take approximately five to six minutes to complete.
Data was collected in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh is the largest city in Saudi
Arabia with a population of 4 million, 3 million of whom come from other cities within the
country. This makes the population of Riyadh an ideal representation of the entire Saudi
population (20 million in total). Data collection covered 19 major districts of the city. The actual
data collection was performed by a professional research agency with many years of experience
in the country. Four hundred and fourteen respondents were contacted to take part in the study.
The total sample counted 261 completed questionnaires (a response rate of 63%); yet, because of
missing data, 23 questionnaires were eliminated from the analysis, yielding a final sample of
238. All respondents were Saudis and the sample was made up of 55.2% males and 44.8%
females. The average age of the respondents was 33 years. Education-related data revealed that
46.1% of the respondents had a bachelor‟s degree, whereas 41.6% held a secondary certificate.
Respondents were asked whether they had, at any point, boycotted Arla Foods‟ products
since the launch of the campaign early in 2006, and if they actually had, whether they were still
boycotting. While 15.2% of the respondents claimed never to have participated in the boycott
(and were eliminated from the final analysis), 37.6% acknowledged having boycotted the brand
only for some time in the past. Most interestingly, 46% of the respondents confirmed their
continued boycotting of Arla Foods. This self-reported behaviour was ascertained by the
participants‟ response to the question about the frequency of their Arla Foods‟ products
purchases. The reported continued boycotting of Arla Foods by consumers can be established by
the fact that up to the data collection period, large stores in Saudi Arabia had not reinstated
Danish products. The presence of a social desirability bias cannot be completely ruled out from
this study as the animosity in question is related to religion, in a society where the latter
significantly shapes the identity of local citizens. Nonetheless, people are likely to be more
honest the greater the „social distance‟ between themselves and their interviewers. It is believed
that a telephone interviewer has little ability to convey favourable or unfavourable reactions to
the respondent, and as such may be seen as meriting less concern in this regard (Bowling, 2005).
Accordingly, telephone interviews were favoured over face-to-face interactions. Furthermore,
and as recommended by Nederhof (1985), the respondents were systematically assured
confidentiality and anonymity.
Survey Instrument and Measures
The survey instrument is derived from Klein et al.‟s (1998) initial test of the animosity
model. It consists of demographic variables and the following six key constructs: (1) consumer
ethnocentrism; (2) consumer animosity; (3) boycotting behaviour; (4) product judgment;
(5) brand image; and (6) brand loyalty. Scales were used to assess a series of statements
reflecting the items measuring the constructs cited above. All statements were measured on a
seven-point Likert-Scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
questionnaire comprised measures and scales from established sources that have previously been
tested for validity and reliability. The scale related to „consumer animosity‟ was adapted from
the work of Klein et al. (1998). The original scale for „consumer ethnocentrism‟ was initially
developed based on the CETSCALE by Shimp and Sharma (1987); we have however adopted
the scale proposed by Rose et al. (2009). The „boycotting scale‟ was adopted from the scale on
the „unwillingness to buy‟ scale used by Rose et al. (2009). Due to the lack of scales on
boycotting behaviour, the scale on „unwillingness to buy‟ was deemed to best reflect the
definition of boycotting. The scale on „product judgment‟ relating to the workmanship,
technological advancement, quality, reliability, design and value for money, was borrowed from
Darling and Wood (1988). Statements measuring „brand image‟ were adopted from Martinez et
al. (2008), whereas those measuring „brand loyalty‟ were adopted from Zeithmal et al. (1996).
All of these scales have been widely used in different contexts and in different languages, which
is a sign of the robustness of these scales.
The questionnaire was first written in English and subsequently translated into Arabic. As
suggested by Brislin (1986), the translation began with a forward translation into Arabic,
followed by a blind back-translation into English in order to ensure readability, clarity and
linguistic equivalence. Two professional translation agencies based in Riyadh were hired: the
first translated the questionnaire from English into Arabic, and the second translated it back into
English. There followed an examination of the original, the translations and the blind-back
translation versions of the questionnaire, as well as a pilot testing of the Arabic version. Face
validity was insured by the pre-testing of the questionnaire through in-depth interviews with
twenty-two respondents in the capital Riyadh. The sample was considered representative of the
population for whom the questionnaire was designed. Respondents were asked to complete the
questionnaire and to evaluate each question separately in order to determine whether the wording
used made the item difficult to answer, confusing, difficult to understand, or offensive. Two
Arabic academics were invited to review the translated Arabic version, to which a few
amendments were made. Both methods of face-validity revealed no problems in the survey.
Results
All constructs in the model were operationalised using multi-item scales. Table 1 below
shows the scales, scales‟ source, items retained, the factor loadings, composite reliability,
Cronbach‟s Alpha, average variance extracted, and the results of the unidimensionality tests. To
ensure that the statements would be appropriate in testing the hypotheses, they were subjected to
a rigorous assessment of validity and reliability. Validity assessment was conducted using
LISREL 8.51. The utilisation of this technique enables statistical efficiency and effective testing
of multiple relationships amongst constructs simultaneously in a systematic and holistic manner
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1995).
The composite reliability and variance extracted were calculated for all constructs, and all
were above the threshold of .60 for composite reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and .50 for
variance extracted (Hair et al., 1995). Evidence of convergent validity is provided by t-values for
statement loadings greater than 2 (Diamantopoulos and Schelegelmilch, 2000). T-values ranging
between 8.86 and 21.17 support the convergent validity for all statement loadings. All critical
ratios for the construct item loadings (extracted using confirmatory factor analysis) are greater
than 2.0, providing some evidence of convergent validity (Segars, 1996). The range of R² for all
indicators varies between .562 and .833. Finally, discriminant validity was assessed by using
Fornell and Larcker‟s (1981) method where the shared variance between two constructs is
compared with the average variance extracted for each construct in the model. If the average
variance extracted (AVE) is greater than the shared variance, there is evidence of discriminant
validity. In addition, the unidimensionality tests for constructs with reflective indicators were
performed as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1982). All indicators of fit χ2(df), p-value,
GFI, AGFI and RMSEA show a reasonably good fit for all constructs thus showing evidence of
construct unidimensionality which is further evidence for discriminant validity. Table 2 shows
the correlation matrix. With these solid results, the model was estimated. Using the criteria
suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), the measurement model largely met (further evidence for
discriminant validity) the criteria: χ² (df) = 591.4(186), p value = .038, CFI = .97, IFI = .97,
RMSEA = 0.075. The results show acceptable support for the measurement model making the
way for testing of the structural model.
---------------------Table 1 Here
---------------------Table 2 Here
---------------------Following the suggestion of Hu and Bentler (1999) for the structural model, the incremental
fit measures used were CFI and IFI (greater than .90). For absolute fit measures, χ 2 statistic,
RMSEA (less than .06), GFI and AGFI (greater than .90) were all used. The hypothesized links
among constructs in the model were tested. The estimation of the model resulted in a very good
fit χ² (df) = 10.42 (5), p-value = .064, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, GFI = .98, AGFI = .94, RMSEA =
0.067. All indices show a good fit; however, RMSEA is slightly above the recommended level.
Nonetheless, this result is deemed acceptable especially when reflecting on the overall fit
indicated by all measures. Figure 2 shows the estimation of the model. To validate the model, a
competitive model was tested. The competitive model proposes that „product judgment‟
influences „boycott‟ (e.g. Mostafa, 2010). The estimation of the competitive model shows a
significant but lesser fit compared with the original model. The estimation of the competing
model resulted in χ² (df) = 11.94(6), p-value = .042, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, GFI = .97, AGFI = .93,
RMSEA = 0.081. Despite these significant results, the comparison between the two models
(original and competitive models) shows the original model to have a better fit confirming its
legitimacy. Furthermore, the path from „product judgment‟ to „boycott‟ is not significant,
achieving a coefficient of only .02. This further indicates that whilst product judgment does not
influence boycotting, boycotting does not lead to a reduction in product judgment. Although
there have been studies (e.g. Klein et al., 1998; Huang et al., 2010) that have found product
judgment to effect willingness to buy, this study does not support either side of the relationship
(product judgment influencing boycott).
-------------------Figure 2 Here
--------------------Discussion
Prior research has suggested that boycotts are effective in that the mere announcement of a
boycott can have a negative effect on an organisation‟s share price, pushing it to take either
reactive or corrective actions (Davidson, Worrell and El-Jelly, 1995; Pruitt and Friedman, 1986).
When consumers boycott a company, positive emotions tied to its brand image, and
consequently sales and stock price, are likely to decrease. The key findings show that consumer
ethnocentrism increases the occurrence of boycotting behaviour and reduces customer loyalty
towards Arla Foods.
Moreover, studies suggest that religion undoubtedly influences consumer behaviour. This
research extended extant literature by proposing a theoretical framework for how religious
animosity increases the likelihood of boycotting. Furthermore, religious animosity has not
destroyed the perceived quality of Arla Foods‟ products, although consumers continue to refuse
to buy them. This finding is similar to other animosities in literature, notably political, economic,
military and inter-ethnic (Nijessen and Douglas, 2004; Shoham et al., 2006, Rose et al., 2009).
Clearly, no type of animosity seems to influence how products are judged by consumers. This
includes religious animosity as found by this study. In addition, it seems the findings from all of
these empirical studies conclusively found no impact from „animosity‟ on product judgment.
The impact of boycotting on brand image and on customer loyalty was found to be negative
and significant. However, no relationship was found between boycotting and product judgment.
Our testing of the competitive model, which hypothesized that product judgment influences
boycotting, was not found significant. This confirmed that no influence exists between the two
boycotting and product judgment in either side of the relationship. This emphasises the fact that,
although consumers deliberately avoid purchasing certain products during boycotting, this does
not change their opinion of the products‟ quality, thus rendering product judgment independent
of the influence of boycotting and religious animosity, with the opposite also standing true.
Furthermore, brand image is the lifeline supporting and maintaining Arla Foods‟ position in the
market. Our findings show that brand images evoking positive emotions increase customer
loyalty and help consumers make better judgments about products.
Religiously motivated boycotting significantly impacts the way consumers perceive the
image of the brand and all its related products, which ultimately influences the way consumers
judge these products. To illustrate this more clearly, a respondent in the interview stated „I’m a
Muslim and Islam taught us what is Halal (can consume) and what is not Halal (cannot
consume). Since the Danish attacked our Prophet then it isn’t Halal to buy their products. I’m
not a scholar but the relationship is clear‟ (male, aged 21). Clearly, during religiously-motivated
boycotts, some consumers tend to redefine the righteousness of their consumption of the
boycotted products in a more religious interpretation, by which they justify their boycotting and
consolidate their boycotting behaviour with their peers.
The main finding of this study shows that macro boycotting has a significant negative impact
on customer loyalty. This key result needs to be treated with some caution. Since the study was
conducted five years after the start of the boycott campaign, time could not be overlooked,
especially as the paper stipulates that religiously-motivated boycotts are to have a more
persistent and long-term effect than other types of boycotts on brand image, product judgment
and brand loyalty. In fact, it is noteworthy to highlight that a large percentage of Saudi customers
were still engaging in boycotts at the time of the data collection. In addition, the significant
religious animosity that drove the campaign made the boycott particularly harmful to Arla
Foods‟ brand image. The impact, if any at all, on brand image from other types of boycotts that
tend to be shorter-term, lasting from a few weeks to a few months at most, is hence worthy of
investigation.
The findings of our study are in line with Swimberghe et al. (2011) research which looks at
religion and religiosity, and suggests that highly religious customers who feel offended for a
religious reason may express their outrage by sustaining their participation in the boycott against
the offending entity. Accordingly, and as should be the case in any highly religious society,
business managers must carefully assess the religious commitment of the consumers in their
target market before explicitly expressing their opinion relating to any religiously or politically
contentious controversy. Local managers must be empowered to make stances that are
compatible with the local market to avoid the animosity and alienation of customers whose
ultimate consumption decisions may lead to decreased corporate sales and profit, or yet more, to
a long-term damage to company brand image or equity.
Managerial Implications and Future Research
Once targeted by a macro-boycott campaign, companies typically face a great challenge
choosing amongst the various strategies available to counteract boycotting campaigns. Arla
Foods would have been more successful in counteracting the boycott if it had considered the
following suggestions:
Firstly, while consumer ethnocentrism in macro boycotting is influential, international firms
need to distance themselves quickly and effectively from the cause of the boycott which has been
triggered by its country of origin. However, managers need to be particularly careful to balance
their response to the boycott and not alienate their customers at home or in other markets. Arla
Foods was slow in responding to the boycotting campaign (Abosag, 2010), and ultimately a
quicker response may have reduced the influence of customer ethnocentrism.
Secondly, our findings show that religious animosity increases the boycott. Managers should
not ignore boycotters‟ religious interpretations of the situation but can certainly build their
counter argument based on religious interpretations. For example, Arla Foods obtained a Fatwa
(religious explanation) from Muslim religious leaders, stating that Arla Foods should not be
punished for something it has not done. Thus, it appears that there is always, in any religion, an
opposite but legitimate argument that international firms can use to defend themselves against
the action of boycotters. However, managers need to be aware that whilst using a religious
„Fatwa‟ may lessen the severity of religious animosity, it will not guarantee an end to the
boycott, as was the case with Arla Foods.
Thirdly, the findings show that the boycott does not influence product judgment. In addition,
the competitive model shows that product judgment does not lead to an increase in the boycott.
Therefore, managers need not put much emphasis on the influence of/on product judgment
during their analysis of the boycott.
Fourthly, we find the boycott to have a significant and negative impact on the brand image of
Arla Foods in Saudi Arabia. This negative influence on brand image is likely to make the
recovery from the boycott more challenging, as restoring brand image can be time-consuming.
Accordingly, managers need to understand that the best way to protect brand image is through
avoiding the boycott altogether. However, given this is a macro-boycott where typically the
targeted companies have nothing directly to do with the cause of the boycott, it seems almost
impossible to avoid the boycott, especially for large international brands. Therefore, international
firms must start distancing their brand from the cause of the boycott almost immediately, and
then start reminding customers of the positive past history of the brand in the country. Abosag
(2010) points out that Arla Foods used old advertisements of its brand to remind Saudi customers
of the long contributions it had made to the society throughout the generations.
Fifthly, our findings show the boycott decreases customer loyalty. Managers need to know
that since the boycott has been motivated largely by religious animosity, customer loyalty will be
the most negatively affected from the boycott. Therefore, regaining customer loyalty will, to a
large extent, depend on the restoration of brand image. Thus, the above suggestion remains
relevant to improving customer loyalty.
The above recommendations combine both preventive and reactive strategies, which should
be considered by all international firms. Furthermore, Knudsen, Aggarwal and Maamoun (2008)
argue that firms need at all times to have an up-to-date contingency plan ready for such
situations. However, before implementing any of these strategies, the targeted firm should gather
the relevant information related to the cause of the campaign in order to make the right decision
about how to deal with the potential consequences of the boycott.
Saudi Arabia was selected as the focus of this study because it still has a high percentage of
customers (46%) boycotting Arla Foods compared with other countries in the Middle East. For
various financial and time constraints, other countries could not be included in this study. Future
research could consider testing the model in other Middle Eastern countries where Arla Foods
has recovered its market share. Subsequent research could also test the model in non-Islamic
countries where religion dominates people‟s daily life. Although we expect the findings from this
study to be applicable to other countries where religion has a controlling effect on societies,
future research should investigate whether religious animosity varies based on an individual‟s
religious belief system. In addition, our paper is the first to test the impact of religiously
motivated boycotting on brand image and loyalty. Perhaps future studies may test these two
constructs in other non-religious boycotting context. Finally, future studies could consider
comparing different Danish brands in Saudi Arabia and see if consumers have reacted or
responded differently compared with Arla Foods.
References
Aaker, J. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research; Vol. 34,
pp. 347–356.
Abosag, I. (2009), “The boycott of Arla Foods in the Middle East”, in G. Armstrong, Kotler, P.,
Harker, M. and Brennan, R. (eds.), Marketing: An Introduction. Essex: Pearson Educational Ltd.
Abosag, I. (2010), “Dancing with macro-boycotters: the case of Arla Food”, Journal of
Marketing Planning and Intelligence; Vol. 28, No.3, pp. 365–373.
Al-Hyari, K., Alnsour, M., Al-Weshah, G. and Haffar M. (2012), “Religious beliefs and
consumer behaviour: from loyalty to boycotts”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 3, No: 2,
pp.155–174
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1982), “Some methods for respectifying measurement models to
obtain unidimensional construct measurement”, Journal of Marketing Research; Vol. 19, No. 4,
pp. 453–460.
Averill, J. (1982), Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173–82.
Brislin, R. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in W. Lonner and
Berry J. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, London: Sage Publication, pp. 137–164.
Bowling, A. (2005), “Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data
quality”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 281–291.
Darling, J. and Arnold D. (1988), “The competitive position abroad of products and marketing
practices of the United States, Japan, and selected European countries”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 5, Fall, pp. 61–68.
Davidson, N., Worrell, D. and El-Jelly, A. (1995), “Influencing managers to change unpopular
corporate behaviour through boycotts and divestitures”, Business Sociology, Vol.34, pp. 171196.
Delgado-Ballesta, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J. (2000), “Brand trust in the context of consumer
loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 11/12, pp. 1238–1258.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Schelegelmilch, B. (2000), Taking the Fear Out of Data Analysis.
Bournemouth: Thomson Learning.
Ettenson, R., Smith, C., Klein, J. and John, A. (2006), “Rethinking consumer boycotts: Recent
events provide five key lessons for the post 9/11 era”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47,
No. 4, pp. 6–7.
Farah, M. and Newman, A. (2010), “A Socio-cognitive approach to exploring consumer boycott
intelligence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 347–355.
Fazio R., Zanna M., and Cooper J. (1977), “Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view
of each theory's proper domain of application”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.
13, No. 5, pp. 464-479.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.
382–388.
Friedman, M. (1999), Consumer Boycotts, New York: Routledge.
Funk, C., Arthurs, J., Treviño, L., and Joireman, J. (2010) “Consumer animosity in the global
value chain: The effect of international production shifts on willingness to purchase hybrid
products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 pp.: 639-651.
Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with
implications for research and practice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 3–19.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Haubl, G. (1996), “A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and brand
name on the evaluation of a new car”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 76–97.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.
1–55.
Huang, Y., Phau, I, Lin, C. (2010), "Consumer animosity, economic hardship, and normative
influence: How do they affect consumers' purchase intention?”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 44, No. 7/8, pp.909 – 937.
Hui, M. and Zhou, L. (2002), “Linking product evaluations and purchase intention for countryof-origin effects”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 107–137.
Ili-Salsabila A., and Abdul-Talib, A. (2012), "Globality and intentionality attribution of
animosity: An insight into the consumer boycotts in the Muslim dominant markets", Journal of
Islamic Marketing, Vol. 3, No.: 1, pp.72–80.
Izberk-Bilgin, E. (2012), “Infidel brands: Unveiling alternative meanings of global brands at the
nexus of globalization, consumer culture and Islamism”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
39, No. 4, pp. 663–687.
Johansson, K., Douglas, P. and Nonaka, I. (1985), “Assessing the impact of country-of-origin on
product evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
22, No. 4, pp. 388–396.
Klein, J., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product purchase:
an empirical test in the people‟s republic of China. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 89100.
Klein, J. and Ettenson, R. (1999), “Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: an
analysis of unique antecedents”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp. 5–24.
Klein, J., Smith, C. and John, A. (2004), “Why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott
participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 921–109.
Knight, J., Bradley S. and Gao, H. (2009), “Riding out the Muhammad cartoons crisis:
contrasting strategies and outcomes”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 6–22.
Knudsen, K., Aggarwal, P. and Maamoun, A. (2008), “The burden of identity: responding to
product boycotts in the Middle East”, Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 6, No.
11, pp. 17–25.
Laidler, H. (1913), Boycotts and the Labour Struggle, New York: John Land.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. and Dubé, L. (1994), “Foreign branding and its effects on product
perceptions and attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 263–270.
Leong, S., Cote, J., Ang, S., Tan, S., Jung, K., Kau, A. and Pornpitakpan, C. (2008),
“Understanding consumer animosity in an international crisis: nature, antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 996–1009.
Martinez, E., Polo, Y. and Chernatony, L. (2008), “Effect of brand extension strategies on brand
image: A comparative study of the UK and Spanish markets”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107–137.
McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2001), Marketing Research Essentials, London: South-West
College Publishing.
Mohamed, R. and Daud, N. (2012), “The impact of religious sensitivity on brand trust, equity
and values of fast food industry in Malaysia”, Business Strategy Series, Vol.13, No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Moore, M., Kennedy, K. and Fairhust, A. (2003), “Cross-cultural equivalence of price
perceptions between US and Polish consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 268–279.
Mostafa M. (2010), “A Structural Equation Analysis of the Animosity Model of Foreign Product
Purchase in Egypt”, Global Business Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 347–363.
Nebenzahl, I. and Jaffe, E. (1996), “Measuring the joint effect of brand and country image in
consumer evaluation of global products”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 522.
Nederhof, A. (1985), “Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review”, European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 263–280.
Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S. and Lichtenstein, D. (1991), “A cross-national assessment of the
reliability and validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.
320–327.
Nijssen, E. and Douglas, S. (2004), “Examining the animosity model in a country with a high
level of foreign trade”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 23-38
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (1993), Product-Country Images: Role and Implications for
International Marketing. New York: International Business Press.
Pruitt, S. and Friedman, M. (1986), “Determining the effectiveness of consumer boycotts: A
stock price analysis of their impact on corporate targets”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 9,
No. 4, pp. 375–387.
Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2007), “Consumer animosity: A literature review and a
reconsideration of its measurement”, International Marketing Review, Vol.24, No. 1, pp. 87-119.
Rose, M., Rose, G. and Shoham, A. (2009), “The impact of consumer animosity on attitudes
towards foreign goods: a study of Jewish and Arab Israelis”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 330–339.
Sandıkcı, Ö. and Ekici, A. (2009), “Politically motivated brand rejection”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 208–217.
Segars, A. (1996), “Assessing the Unidimensionality of Measurement: A paradigm and
Illustration within the Context of Information Systems Research”, Omega, Vol. 25, No. 15:
pp.107–121.
Sen, S., Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Morwitz, V. (2001), “Withholding consumption: A social dilemma
perspective on consumer boycotts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 399–417.
Shankarmahesh, M. (2006) "Consumer ethnocentrism: an integrative review of its antecedents
and consequences", International Marketing Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.146 – 172.
Shebil, S., Rasheed, A. and Al-Shammari, H. (2011), “Coping with boycotts: An analysis and
framework”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 383–397.
Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 280–289.
Shin, M. (2001), “The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: does it work in
Korea?”, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, Vol. 6, pp. 1–14.
Shocker, T., Srivastava, S. and Ruekert, P. (1994), “Challenges and opportunities facing brand
management”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 149–158.
Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J., and Ruvio A. (2006), “Animosity on the home front: the
Intifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol.
14, No. 3, pp. 92–114.
Smith, C. and Cooper-Martin, E. (1997), “Ethics and target marketing: the role of product harm
and consumer vulnerability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 1–20.
Steenkamp J., Batra R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 53–65.
Swimberghe, K., Flurry, L. A., Parker, J. M. (2011), “Consumer Religiosity: Consequences for
Consumer Activism in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103, pp. 453–467.
Verlegh, P., and Steenkamp, J. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 521–546.
Zeithmal, V., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioural consequences of services
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 3–16.